Partaking Of The Emblems

Dear Editor,

Why is there a practice to partake in wine and bread, the emblems of Jesus’ blood and flesh, on every Sunday? Whatever quotations are given in favor of this practice contain no assertion of day, period of time or how frequently it should be practiced.

When Jesus instituted this memorial, the day was 14th Nisan, the first month of the Jewish calendar at the beginning of a Jewish day (our evening). Jesus said, “whenever you drink it,” suggesting there could be flexibility in when disciples would partake.

How can you defend your practice that you do it weekly on every Sunday and you are following Christ in the right way?

Nusrat Aman, Canada

The Christadelphian practice is based on Acts 20:7 “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread”; I Corinthians 16:2, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store…”, and the convenience of meeting on the first day in our society. In countries or situations where Saturday or Friday is the more convenient day, then we would use that day. The time of our meetings during the day is also a matter of convenience, some ecclesias holding their memorial service in the afternoon because of farming or transportation factors.

We recognize the earliest disciples probably shared the emblems daily (Acts 2:46). We also recognize there is no rigid command as to frequency of participating in the emblems. Some of our members partake of the memorials several times a week and others may do so every second or third week. Most of us participate weekly, or more often, because we want to. With most, it is not a matter of command, but of spiritual desire and need. When we think of the idea, “as often as ye do this, ye remember me,” we realize we desire to remember our Savior as often as possible.

Personally, we would submit that if a baptized believer feels no desire to partake frequently of the emblems, he should take a long and concerned look at the state of his spiritual health.

Varied Views on Prophecy

Dear Bro. Don,

It has been my lot to experience first hand the strong reaction of the brotherhood when they see an alternate perspective on prophecy other than what is now commonly called “The traditional view.” I have used the continuous historical method of analyzing the last 130 years of events that developed after the days of Bro. John Thomas and have come to different conclusions as to the identity of the harlot in Revelation. For this I have been labeled “a false prophet,” “a terrible Bible student,” etc.

In my opinion, any logical and reasonable discussion does not exist except for a small number of brethren for whom I am extremely grateful. Personal growth has been stifled in favor of what can be “cut and pasted” from the opinions of our prominent brethren.

Glen Simpson, Hamilton, Ontario

We strongly suspect other issues must be involved here in addition to an alternative view of the interpretation of the prophetic scriptures. In reading our literature for over 50 years, we have always noted several views being presented. Even those who expound Revelation according to the “continuous historical” view will have varied ideas on the application of specific symbols, and various ideas of updating the exposition of Dr. Thomas who believed Christ would return in 1870. You may have noted that there have been quite substantial differences from “The traditional view” after the fall of the USSR.

We noted the views of Bro. Fred Pearce, at one time associate editor of the Christadelphian, were significantly different from those of other brethren, and his views were published in that magazine. In a Bible class we were recently leading, several views were expressed regarding Ezekiel 38-39 and all were treated with courtesy.

If, however, someone expounds the Revelation so as to neutralize its condemnation of the apostate system, we can understand why one might deservedly meet very ardent opposition. The apostate system is Christianity’s equivalent to the false prophets in Israel. It is our firm opinion that we jeopardize our stand for the true gospel if we fail to clearly see God’s message of condemnation against the apostasy which has led millions away from Bible teaching. This issue is commented on further in the editorial.